Activity: What Would You Do In These Ethical Dilemmas?

You’ve read the codes. You’ve studied the principles. You’ve nodded along to “do no harm.”

But ethics isn’t just theory. More than that, ethics is the moment your stomach drops because you realize you have to decide.

Welcome to the gray zone.

In this interactive finale, you’ll face a series of hypothetical research and practice scenarios inspired by real-world ethical challenges. Each one asks: What would you do and why?

Take your time and reflect on the situation. There’s no single right answer, but there are better and worse ways to think it through. I hope you’ll also share your decisions and reasoning in the comments so that we can all grow together!

How to Reflect

For each scenario, ask yourself:

1. Which ethical principles are in tension?
2. What stakeholders are affected (for example, participants, researchers, institutions, society)?
3. What actions minimize harm and maximize integrity?
4. How might culture, context, or technology shift your answer?

There’s no single right decision, but there’s always a right process:

• Pause.
• Reflect.
• Consult.
• Document.
• Act with care.

So with that covered, let’s dive in with our scenarios!

Scenario 1: The Sleep Study That Went Too Far

You’re leading a university research project on the effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance. Participants are paid volunteers who agree to stay awake for 36 hours while completing problem-solving tasks.

By hour 28, one participant (a 22-year-old student) starts showing signs of extreme distress: trembling hands, confusion, and tearfulness. They insist on continuing because they “really need the money.”

Your research assistant reminds you that the data will be incomplete if you stop now. To make matters worse, you’re behind schedule, and the grant deadline is looming.

What would you do?

Reflect:

• How do beneficence and nonmaleficence apply here?
• Would stopping the study violate the participant’s autonomy or would it protect it?
• How would you handle the data that was already collected?

Hint: Sometimes “doing good science” means walking away from the data.

Scenario 2: The Social Media Experiment

You’re collaborating with a tech company on a study analyzing emotional expression on social media. The company offers you access to anonymized user data with millions of posts from all around the world.

However, a week into the analysis, you realize the data isn’t truly anonymous. With just a few clicks, you can trace some posts straight back to identifiable users.

The company insists it’s fine and says “no one will ever know.”

You start to sweat… After all, this is a big study, and the results could absolutely make your entire career.

What would you do?

Reflect:

• How would integrity and respect for privacy guide your next step?
• Is it ethical to use data that was collected without clear consent?
• What responsibility do you have to the users and to the truth?

Hint: Just because data is digital doesn’t mean it’s free.

Scenario 3: The Cross-Cultural Consent

You’re part of a research team studying trauma recovery in rural communities overseas. The local custom is that community elders give consent on behalf of participants, which means that individual signatures aren’t considered necessary.

Your Western ethics training tells you this violates autonomy. But refusing to follow local protocol could seriously offend the community and possibly end the project entirely.

What would you do?

Reflect:

• How do you balance universal ethical standards with cultural relativism?
• Whose definition of “informed consent” should take precedence?
• Could you find a culturally respectful compromise?

Hint: Ethical pluralism means listening as much as leading.

Scenario 4: The Therapy Client Who Follows You Online

You’re a therapist working with a teenage client who struggles with anxiety.

One evening, as you’re unwinding with a bit of scrolling through social media, you notice a new follower on your private Instagram account. It’s your client.

Their profile is public, and you can see several posts that suggest self-harm.

You want to help, but you also know that viewing or responding to their posts could blur professional boundaries.

What would you do?

Reflect:

• How do fidelity, responsibility, and respect for privacy intersect here?
• Would ignoring the posts be neglectful or necessary?
• How can you address the issue ethically in your next session?

Hint: In the digital age, boundaries are part of beneficence.

Scenario 5: The “Perfect” Result

You’ve been running a long-term study on memory and aging. After three years, the data is… well… it’s pretty messy… Heck, half the results don’t support your hypothesis.

A colleague suggests “cleaning up” the data by removing “a couple outliers” and rewording the discussion to make the findings look more consistent.

“It’s not lying,” they say. “It’s clarifying.”

You keep glancing back and forth between your colleague and your laptop screen.

“Publish or perish, right?” the colleague says with a chuckle before leaving the room to go get lunch.

What would you do?

Reflect:

• How does integrity apply when the truth is inconvenient?
• What’s the difference between data cleaning and data manipulation?
• How might this choice affect your credibility and the field’s?

Hint: Ethics isn’t about perfection. Most importantly, it’s about honesty.

Scenario 6: The AI Therapist

You’re consulting on a project developing an AI chatbot that delivers cognitive-behavioral therapy. The company wants to launch quickly and asks you to sign off on the ethics review.

However, you discover the AI hasn’t been tested for cultural bias.

Furthermore, the company’s privacy policy allows user data to be shared with third parties.

The CEO argues that “it’s better than nothing, isn’t it?” and reminds you several times that this could help millions who can’t afford therapy.

What would you do?

Reflect:

• How do beneficence and justice apply in tech-based psychology?
• Does potential good justify ethical shortcuts?
• What new responsibilities come with blending psychology and AI?

Hint: Innovation without ethics is just disruption in disguise.

Scenario 7: The Researcher Who Crosses a Line

You’re supervising a graduate student who’s conducting interviews with survivors of domestic violence. One day, you overhear them comforting a participant with physical contact in the form of a hug.

The participant seemed grateful, but the student didn’t get explicit consent.

Later, the student asks, “Did I do something wrong?”

What would you do?

Reflect:

• How do boundaries and compassion coexist in trauma research?
• Would reporting the breach do more harm than good?
• How can you turn this into a teaching moment and not just a reprimand?

Hint: Ethics is as much about mentorship as it is about rules.

Scenario 8: The Forgotten Follow-Up

You’re running a longitudinal study on adolescent mental health. Six months after the first round of surveys, you realize one participant disclosed suicidal thoughts, but no one followed up.

You’re absolutely horrified.

Sure, the oversight wasn’t intentional. But it was yours.

What would you do?

Reflect:

• How do responsibility and nonmaleficence apply after the fact?
• What steps should you take to repair harm and prevent recurrence?
• How do you handle this ethically with your team and institution?

Hint: Accountability is an ethical act, not a punishment.

Scenario 9: The Cultural Misstep

You’re presenting your research on family dynamics at an international conference.

During Q&A, a psychologist from another country points out that your survey questions assume a Western definition of “family.”

Every eye in the room is looking at you, and you could swear that someone just turned the heat up in the room as hot as it could possibly go.

You feel defensive, but you also realize that they’re totally right.

What would you do?

Reflect:

• How does justice relate to representation in research?
• What does respect for diversity look like in methodology?
• How can you turn critique into ethical growth?

Hint: Ethical humility is a superpower.

Scenario 10: The Participant Who Confides a Crime

During a confidential interview, a participant admits to committing a serious but unreported crime years ago. They’re clearly remorseful and say that this is an important part of their healing process.

You’re torn.

Your ethical code says to protect confidentiality, but your conscience says to report it.

What would you do?

Reflect:

• How do confidentiality and public safety interact?
• What do your ethical code and local laws require?
• How do you balance compassion with responsibility?

Hint: Ethics often lives in the space between law and empathy.

Tomato Takeaway

How are you feeling?

As you’ve seen in each of these hypothetical situations, ethics isn’t a checklist but a conversation between your values, your culture, and your conscience.

You can memorize every single code in the book, but real ethics happens in those messy, all-too-human moments when you have to decide exactly what kind of psychologist you want to be.

So, wrapping up, here’s your Tomato Takeaway for today:

Ethics isn’t about knowing all the answers. It’s about being brave enough to ask the right questions. Which of these dilemmas challenged you most and what would you do?

Drop your reflections in the comments (or discuss with your team, your students, or your own inner philosopher).

Also, this is a different kind of content from what I normally write on this site, but I’d like to do more “What Would You Do” kind of articles/activities. Let me know if that’s something you’d like to see more of on this site!